Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Wilbon on PTI just said...

Jangler

By Jangler,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

D34Williams Newbie

D34Williams

Posted
Posted

he's talking about the replacement players playing instead of the actual players on the 53 man roster. I don't know for sure, but I think it's the practice squad guys that get to go out and play, if indeed there is any playing at all. That's what happened in 1987 when the players went on strike and there was a lockout. It was only for like 3 weeks, and those games ended up counting towards their teams records when it came to the postseason, draft order, etc. I don't know if that is actually going to happen or not, but if it is, this is what they're referring to when they say scrub players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mountainpantherfan Newbie

mountainpantherfan

Posted
Posted

The biggest myth right now in the NFL is that the only option for the owners is to force a lockout. That is not the case.

The owners and claim that the negociations have stalled (and the NFLPA is playing right into the owners hands on this one) and present to the Labor board their "last, best offer". At this point in time the NFLPA will have two options, accept the deal or strike.

If they strike, the owners will use replacement players just like they did in 87. It's not about needing to use them to make money off the games being played, it's the fact that America will watch them and thus the use of them will become a negociating weapon in bringing down the NFLPA.

The players never had much of a chance in this. They are placing all of their hopes in that the US court system will defy all past rulings and see the NFL as one corperation and a group of owners. Thats the only way the players will get what they want and those chances are not really likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
countryboi Veteran

countryboi

Posted
Posted

The biggest myth right now in the NFL is that the only option for the owners is to force a lockout. That is not the case.

The owners and claim that the negociations have stalled (and the NFLPA is playing right into the owners hands on this one) and present to the Labor board their "last, best offer". At this point in time the NFLPA will have two options, accept the deal or strike.

If they strike, the owners will use replacement players just like they did in 87. It's not about needing to use them to make money off the games being played, it's the fact that America will watch them and thus the use of them will become a negociating weapon in bringing down the NFLPA.

The players never had much of a chance in this. They are placing all of their hopes in that the US court system will defy all past rulings and see the NFL as one corperation and a group of owners. Thats the only way the players will get what they want and those chances are not really likely.

so if the players are fuged why are even doing this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jangler Apprentice

Jangler

Posted
  • Author
Posted

he's talking about the replacement players playing instead of the actual players on the 53 man roster. I don't know for sure, but I think it's the practice squad guys that get to go out and play, if indeed there is any playing at all. That's what happened in 1987 when the players went on strike and there was a lockout. It was only for like 3 weeks, and those games ended up counting towards their teams records when it came to the postseason, draft order, etc. I don't know if that is actually going to happen or not, but if it is, this is what they're referring to when they say scrub players.

The difference this time is the owners are threatening. In '87 it was the players that went on strike. As was stated the owners will get paid with or without football, the players won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mountainpantherfan Newbie

mountainpantherfan

Posted
Posted

so if the players are fuged why are even doing this?

There not. They got a great deal under the old CBA. The owners are the ones backing out of the deal and now forcing a new one to be settled on.

The players don't want any changes to the old CBA and would be just as happy to see it stay the same (aside from the fact the old CBA gave the league the right to go to a 18 game regular season, players aren't mentioning that one right now.) The owners are the ones that want changes made. The dumb move was that the NFLPA gave the owners the right to do this in the old CBA. The players were banking on the "fact" that owners would allow an uncapped year in fear of never again having the cap.

The players and the NFLPA took a deal back in 2006 that really set them up come 2011. The owners hold all the cards right now and the players gave them to the owners.

There's not going to be a lockout by the way. Either the owner will make their "best, last offer" or the NFLPA will decertify. Eitherway a lockout will not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • ForJimmy
      Panthers attempted to trade up with Ravens?

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      Miller being less raw and more pro ready makes sense of why they picked him. With us having a capable starter in Walker the lower floor higher ceiling player makes sense for us as well. I agree with that. 
    • tukafan21
      Panthers attempted to trade up with Ravens?

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I'm from Michigan and have had this discussion with my Lions friends, and they all agree with me, they were never going to take Freeling over Miller.  As, yes, you are correct, they could have left Sewell at RT and taken Freeling, but they are in a SB contention window right now. An OL with Freeling at LT and Sewell at RT is not as strong as Sewell at LT and Miller at RT would be for this upcoming season and likely at least next year as well. 5 years it could be looked back upon as a long term "mistake" to take Miller over Freeling, but for a franchise like the Lions, you can't worry about the long term when you have current SB aspirations.  It's all about maximizing their current SB window over the next 1-3 years. And it's not about style, it's about day 1 readiness, and a lot of "experts" aren't even sure if Freeling is ready to play Week 1 yet at the position he's used to, let alone switching to a side he hasn't played before, but a career starting RT is going to be more than ready to fill that role for them Week 1. I'm 100% convinced that if our draft positioning was swapped, we'd have still taken Freeling, they'd have still taken Miller, and both teams would have got the OT that they preferred due to what each team needs right now and what their current realistic aspirations are for the 2026 season. We're in a position where we can let our drafted OT sit and learn for a bit, they needed a week 1 starter, for me that's where this discussion becomes very easy to understand why each team took the player they did.
    • TD alt
      Monroe Freeling’s lovely GF

      By TD alt · Posted

      He was also apparently.
×
×
  • Create New...